But your original question was why doesn’t somebody just decide what’s bad for society?
My original post wasn’t a question at all, it was a statement that somebody does need to have the capacity to enforce acceptable behavior, but defining it and deciding who that falls to is difficult.
Curiosity since this seems to have irritated some people. Would you suggest that a platform not be regulated in some way if it where enabling the creation of exploitive and hateful content?
Even putting aside that you literally had a question in the comment, posting your opinion in a public forum and then expecting that your opinion is the end of the discussion is asinine at best. I’m not interested in discussing the semantics of rhetorical devices, I was just trying to help you understand why you were being downvoted. A mistake I don’t plan on making again.
I had no question in the original post, making no mention of the edit after.
I didn’t expect it to simply be the end all statement, but a number of down votes without explanation prompted me to inquire on why.
What seems to sum up the argument though is that censorship is always bad, unless it’s the sort that you and the majority of society agree with. My suggestion originally was that indeed some is required, to maintain civil society, but who decides it is hard to say.
Then when somebody answered your inquiry you started arguing with them about whether or not you had even asked anything and then continued to not read their response.
Your summary tells me that at this point you’re being intentionally closed minded. I have no intention of continuing this conversation.
My original post wasn’t a question at all, it was a statement that somebody does need to have the capacity to enforce acceptable behavior, but defining it and deciding who that falls to is difficult.
Even putting aside that you literally had a question in the comment, posting your opinion in a public forum and then expecting that your opinion is the end of the discussion is asinine at best. I’m not interested in discussing the semantics of rhetorical devices, I was just trying to help you understand why you were being downvoted. A mistake I don’t plan on making again.
I had no question in the original post, making no mention of the edit after.
I didn’t expect it to simply be the end all statement, but a number of down votes without explanation prompted me to inquire on why.
What seems to sum up the argument though is that censorship is always bad, unless it’s the sort that you and the majority of society agree with. My suggestion originally was that indeed some is required, to maintain civil society, but who decides it is hard to say.
I literally quoted your question to you.
Then when somebody answered your inquiry you started arguing with them about whether or not you had even asked anything and then continued to not read their response.
Your summary tells me that at this point you’re being intentionally closed minded. I have no intention of continuing this conversation.
Yes, the part preceded by the word EDIT: was a question. Whatever, have fun